TNR Watch: Australia’s Responses to Transnational Repression

Earlier this month, Freedom House released a case study on the Australian government’s responses to transnational repression, entitled More Action Needed to Ensure Safety: Combating Transnational Repression in Australia. Selected findings from the report are summarized here. 

What Australia is doing well: Australian authorities are aware that authoritarian regimes pose a threat to exiled activists in the country. The government has developed a strategy to counter foreign interference—including intimidation of diaspora populations—and produced public materials about foreign interference that are available in different languages. Law enforcement agencies conduct outreach among immigrant groups and tell people to report incidents to the National Security Hotline. Canberra has also backed multilateral statements at the UN Human Rights Council, the Group of Seven, and the Summit for Democracy that recognized the need to address transnational repression. 

Where gaps remain: People interviewed for the case study noted that authorities do not always follow up on incidents reported to the police or other government agencies. In addition, Australian laws meant to combat foreign interference have come under criticism over their scope and failure to define transnational repression specifically. On foreign policy, the Australian government has supported multilateral initiatives but has not struck out on its own to pursue accountability through sanctions or visa bans. Australia’s long-standing reliance on the offshoring of asylum processing has also raised the risk that migrants will be sent to third countries where they may be exposed to transnational repression. 

Other democracies: Australia is one of a growing number of democracies, alongside Canada and the United Kingdom, that have developed policies to enhance the safety and resilience of communities targeted by transnational repression. These governments have passed legislation to criminalize certain types of foreign interference and have created plans for community outreach, but each could focus more on improving training for frontline responders and increasing transparency on the actions taken by officials to address reported incidents. Australian policymakers might also follow the lead of Canada and the United Kingdom by holding a Senate inquiry into transnational repression, which would amplify the voices of diaspora activists and produce more information about the everyday tactics and scope of the problem. Finally, all three governments could bolster the resilience of diaspora groups by providing funding for them and for human rights organizations to develop their own resources on transnational repression, including digital security guides for those facing online harassment or surveillance.